I Employ Methods
Steve Fuller. I’ve been browsing in some of my books, leafing through indexes, consulting bibliographies. Steve Fuller.
Here is a passage from Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont’s Fashionable Nonsense pp. 97-98:
Let us read it as a methodological principle for a sociologist of science who does not himself have the scientific competence to make an independent assessment of whether the experimental/observational data do in fact warrant the conclusions the scientific community has drawn from them. In such a situation, the sociologist will be understandably reluctant to say that ‘the scientific community under study came to conclusion X because X is the way the world really is’ – even if it is in fact the case that X is the way the world is and that is the reason the scientists came to believe it – because the sociologist has no independent grounds to believe that X is the way the world really is other than the fact that the scientific community under study came to believe it. Of course, the sensible conclusion to draw from this cul de sac is that sociologists of science ought not to study controversies on which they lack the competence to make an independent assessment of the facts, if there is no other (for example, historically later) scientific community on which they could justifiably rely for such an independent assessment. But it goes without saying that Latour would not enjoy this conclusion.
The passage is about Bruno Latour, you see; the ‘it’ in the opening words refers to Latour’s Third Rule of Method: ‘Since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Nature’s representation, not the consequence, we can never use the outcome – Nature – to explain how and why a controversy has been settled.’ (Science in Action) They add a footnote to the observation that Latour would not enjoy this conclusion:
Nor would Steve Fuller, who asserts that ‘STS [Science and Technology Studies] practitioners employ methods that enable them to fathom both the “inner workings” and the “outer character” of science without having to be expert in the fields they study.’
Is that not hilarious? Oh do they! They employ methods, do they?! What kind of methods would those be then? Magic? Electro-mesmero-polycrypto salutations de mains? Pyramidal veridical saltations? Hyperosperical croptyflangial resonical fleering? No matter. No problem. We’ll just take their word for it. They say they have methods, so they must have methods, right? Of course. Because they wouldn’t say they have methods if they didn’t have methods – therefore they must have methods. Right? Right. So we’ll take their word for it. Same way, if some academics come tripping down the pike saying they have methods of resurrecting Shakespeare or turning back copies of the New York Times into gold necklaces, we’ll take their word for it, because why not? That’s what I call Sociology of Science.
Could be another sweatshirt slogan. ‘I employ methods.’
Sounds like someone’s got a case of STS envy …
> Steve Fuller… asserts that ‘STS [Science and Technology Studies] practitioners employ methods that enable them to fathom both the “inner workings” and the “outer character” of science without having to be expert in the fields they study.’< Fuller certainly demonstrates that he is no expert in the field he studies: “At any point in its history, science could have gone in many directions. The few paths actually taken have been due to ambient political, economic and cultural factors.”
http://members.tripod.com/~ScienceWars/indoo.html
As one reviewer comments:
“What Fuller does not know anything about is science. Nowhere in his huge output or its bibliographies is there evidence of reading in science…”
But then, “Fuller is a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, and he has the attitudes that a sociologist would predict for a Midlands professor of sociology.”
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/18/jun00/kuhn.htm
Fuller had an article published in the same issue of Social Text as the famous Sokal hoax.
In a defensive letter to the TLS, he concludes:
To my mind, Sokal does the most damage to postmodernism when his own designation of his piece as a ‘hoax’ is taken as the authoritative reading of it.
I wonder how Golgafrincham would have dealt with Professor Steve?
Am subjecting myself to the full transcripts. Love the bit where Fuller thinks it important to mention that no one has ever gotten a Nobel Prize for evolution…
… and where he states there is “massive disagreement” with Dawkins “across all evolutionary biology.” Right. Because how can you teach the controversy till you’ve taken the time to manufacture it?
Yes, I’ve been reading the transcripts too. Plan to put some high points in a comment.
Q. Do you have an opinion concerning whether
intelligent design is science?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. It is.
Q. Do you have an opinion concerning whether
intelligent design is religion?
A. It is not.
OB,
the bit you need is this:
Q:… Do you see the situation with respect to evolutionary theory and its relationship to religion as different in principle from the relationship between religion and intelligent design theory?
A: Oh, I see. No, no difference.
And this is from someone who does not claim a background in science, whose supposed expertise is how power-politics influence what is accepted as science and has somehow tried to dismiss as unimportant earlier on the undisputed fact that almost all ID supporters are religious.
Pardon me while I scream…
still screaming
“…supernaturalistic just means… involving some kind of intelligence or mind that’s not reducible to ordinary natural categories. Okay?… I’m not saying, you know, they’re committed to ghosts or something.”
Would it be helpful to count the percentage of IDers who do profess belief in a holy ghost?
This whole thing reminds me how much I hate dishonesty. Fuller is overflowing with “wisdom” for the questions of the ID lawyer. Comes the cross-examination, he’s suddenly Manuel from Fawlty Towers (“I know nothing”).
I’m not saying he’s stupid. But I do wonder how the hell he can live with himself if he isn’t.
Oh goody, they nailed him (but not hard enough) for his position that every new theory needs institutional support to develop and accumulate supporting evidence – with the exception of ID, which can skip all that and go straight into the school system
Last one for now:
It’s so ludicrous. He admits that all of the IDers’ attempt at science are failures, but thinks that ought to be ignored because they’re “trying.” And what a weaselly attempt to misinterpret Behe’s admission that the less you believe in god, the less plausible ID is…
why can’t we just close the whole case by putting the ID movement through Dembski’s mathematical fraud detector?
Boy, well done, Stewart.
“And this is from someone who does not claim a background in science, whose supposed expertise is how power-politics influence what is accepted as science”
Yes but you see he has methods! Methods, methods, methods.
“supernaturalistic just means… involving some kind of intelligence or mind that’s not reducible to ordinary natural categories”
Oy vey. That’s the kind of shit I hate. What the hell does that mean? What does ‘reducible’ mean there? What does ‘ordinary’ mean? What does ‘some kind’ mean? What does any of it mean other than hand waving?
“Fuller is overflowing with “wisdom” for the questions of the ID lawyer.”
Yeah, to the point where the judge tells him not to have caffeine during the break. That was funny!
This is already a couple of days old, but reasonably amusing (I found the Homer Simpson reference especially evocative):
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92062/
Btw, Ophelia, this is slightly — but only slightly off-topic since you have taken it on to debunk so many things — but as to “woo-woo” things, where do you place acupuncture?
I know you don’t like Feng Shui’s theories (though you seemed to accept its efficacy.
Just curious. Honest.
Oh, yes. The decaf. bit got my attention. None of the news reports did justice to the actual transcripts. There were so many important things there that they completely missed out on. They wiped the floor with him in the cross-examination and I didn’t get that impression at all from any of the other online sources. And his arguments were so poor. It was clear that all his lines of thought began with the premise that it was important to give ID a hearing in the school system, even if he had called it creationism himself before he knew better, even if it had been unable to pass the simplest scientific tests etc. One thing I felt they missed out on when making the plate tectonics comparisons: they were talking about theories no one had really heard of till they were finally accepted. I don’t think ID can fairly be compared to that kind of thing. It’s very well funded, has many adherents who know it’s just creationism in sheep’s clothing (’cause it couldn’t evolve, could it?), has a well-known leaked long-term strategy paper and is enormously well-known. It ain’t no underdog; it’s a Goliath pretending to be weak in order to slyly kick the legs out from under knowledge honestly come by. It resorts to this because there are laws in place to stop it forcing itself on people and there are few things that make that kind of Goliath sorer than that.
“I don’t think ID can fairly be compared to that kind of thing.”
No, neither do I. They’ve had time – they haven’t been able to come up with any actual research.
Plus, as the plaintiff’s attorney pointed out, even if they were unfairly marginalized, why would forcing them on the public schools be the way to go?
That was weird. I posted a comment after David and it appeared earlier than his. Must be some kind of daylight savings magic.
Anyway, David – no I didn’t accept Fung Shui’s efficacy. I said some of it was perfectly sane garden-variety decoration and aesthetics. But the other part of it is woo-woo.
As for acupuncture, I don’t know. Don’t know enough about it. I’m very skeptical – even beady-eyed – but I don’t know. I think some of the anaesthetic effects claimed for it needn’t strain credulity particularly, but the rest of it – I’m skeptical but don’t know.
David,
If I may suggest a visit to:
http://www.randi.org/
and a search for “acupuncture”
or go to:
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/acupuncture.html
which is the entry for it in his “Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural.”
There are plenty of possible explanations for why people believe it has helped them, but the traditional explanation behind acupuncture itself simply doesn’t match – at all – what we now know about the human body that the ancient Chinese didn’t.
From Randi’s encyclopedia –
“Many very fat addicts swear that this system works.”
Laughing immoderately.
“Anyway, David – no I didn’t accept Fung Shui’s efficacy.”
Did so! And now I suppose you’re going to deny that you said (and you did, you did say it!)that God made the world in 4004 BC and that He put old-looking bones in rocks to test our faith and that people who deny the Trinity will burn in hell forever?
If thet want us to call it “Fung Shoi”, why do they insist on spelling it “Feng Shui”?
Oneupmanship in skepticism is tempting. Whenever I read statements which offer certainty that something is NOT true, I remember good old Shakespeare: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
By no means do I claim that either Feng-Shui or Acupuncture have value — but I am such a skeptic that I am even skeptical of other skeptics!
I bring up Acupuncture in particular because a friend – a skeptical trial attorney just went in for acupuncture treatment for some back pain. She is not “a believer.” But the treatment worked and the pain was immediately and dramtically lessened. Placebo effect? Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But it worked for her. Pronto.
As to Feng-Shui…your statement above confirms my memory. You write “some of it was perfectly sane garden-variety decoration and aesthetics..” which means to me specific directives work but theory behind them unconvincing.
Always worth refering to Skepdic.com;
http://skepdic.com/acupunc.html
‘She is not “a believer.” But the treatment worked and the pain was immediately and dramtically lessened.’
Funny, I was just thinking about that, miles away from computer and B&W; about acupuncture and my suspension of judgment and anesthesia etc. What did I mean when I said that? I asked myself. The answer I came up with was, precisely: if I had chronic untreatable back pain (which is a very common problem), I might well try acupuncture, in the full awareness that any effect could be just placebo (because I couldn’t help being aware of that), but wanting anything that worked. So, sure. If acupuncture ‘works’ for chronic back pain for no matter what reason, good. Fine.
‘You write “some of it was perfectly sane garden-variety decoration and aesthetics..” which means to me specific directives work but theory behind them unconvincing.’
No. You said ‘efficacy.’ What is ‘efficacy’ in decoration and aesthetics? What do you mean ‘specific directives work’? What does ‘work’ mean there? You mean the colloquial sense as in ‘works for me!’? But that’s not the same meaning as, say, ‘Feng shui works because it directs chi in accordance with with your alignments.’ That’s a bait and switch tactic, which is one of the many ways New Agey nonsense tries to insinuate itself into the real world. Feng shui doesn’t ‘work’ and it doesn’t have ‘efficacy.’
Oh come on, OB. One question at a time and I think you might be getting a bit carried away with the torch of “skepticism.”
You are shifting your ground on Feng Shui so that I really don’t know what you are saying.
On the one hand you agree that “…some of it was perfectly sane garden-variety decoration and aesthetics. But the other part of it is woo-woo.”
Then you dismiss it as not working. Please make up your mind.
It is quite possible –and that is all I attempted to communicate — that the rules of Feng Shui might work well but that the theory behind them might be bunk. That seemed to be consistent with what you wrote but apparently I misread the meaning of the clause “…some of it was perfectly sane garden-variety decoration and aesthetics.”
No, David, I’m not shifting my ground. (I am however getting carried away with the torch of skepticism. It’s very strong, you see – almost demonic – and it has a tendency to grab me and zoom off to Tulsa or Nairobi or Wolverhampton without so much as a by your leave. So tiresome.) I’m not shifting my ground, I’m pointing out that you are muddling terms. (And what do you mean, one question at a time? Who made that rule?) You didn’t answer my question. What does ‘work’ mean in decoration and aesthetics? Now a new question: what does it mean ‘the rules of Feng Shui might work well’? Work well in what sense? Making a pretty and pleasant interior? Or creating good luck? There’s a difference.
To put it another way, ‘working’ in medical and physical matters is not the same thing as ‘working’ in aesthetic matters. In a literal sense, there’s no such thing as ‘working’ in aesthetic matters, whereas there is in medical and physical matters. Surely that’s blindingly obvious, isn’t it?
A further complication is that Feng shui claims to do more than one thing, and more than one kind of thing.
When OB says God doesn’t exist, I understand her to mean that Jesus is Lord. Then she contradicts herself when she says the the earth is 4 billion years old, which I take to be code for Satan is Lord. (Then she goes and wears that paisley scarf, which is an obvious message addressed specifically to me, warning me not to eat eels in November.) Please make up your mind, OB. My brain hurts.
OB,
Perhaps the problem is that you think Feng Shui is about “aesthetics.” It’s not. It’s about shaping human behavior through the arrangement of objects…just as urban design is (or at least should be) about influencing human behavior.
For a design to “work” — and Feng Shui is about design, really, not “decoration and aesthetics” — means that it produces certain desired results. A good design is goal-oriented. Feng Shui is about how to design a household. Its rules often make sense even if one rejects the “energy flow” theories behind them.
In general, I don’t think this is a productive venue to discuss these issues; they are too vast a subject for “comments” — especially as your blog is not oriented to the actual physical environment and offers little context for discussion. Of course “Design” is not part of your beat so I am not surprised at your hostility to Feng Shui.
So give us some concrete examples of Feng Shui design influencing human behavior, independent of someone’s belief in the mystical powers of Feng Shui to influence his or her behavior. Leaving aside any commonsense rules of arrangement and aesthetics, what’s so special or efficacious about Feng Shui?
Karl,
If you folks know so little about Feng Shui that you have ask to ask such a basic question, how can you be opining on the matter? :) It’s funny, frankly. I’d suggest you go read some first and then we can discuss.
And look I am not a big Feng Shui advocate — I don’t go for the mystical stuff. But I react adversely to over-proud skepticism which sneers so boldly.
David, if you don’t think this is a productive venue to discuss these issues, why did you bring them up? You’re the one who demanded my opinion of Feng shui in the first place.
What was that about shifting ground, again?
‘What do you think of Feng shui?’
‘Not much.’
‘This is not the place to discuss Feng shui.’
“Karl: If you folks know so little about Feng Shui that you have ask to ask such a basic question, how can you be opining on the matter? :) It’s funny, frankly. I’d suggest you go read some first and then we can discuss.”
Because I’m not interested enough to spend hours looking for books on FS and reading them. You, however, seem to getting quite defensive about the subject, so I assumed you knew a fair bit about it and would be willing to offer some examples and explanations.
But whatever.
You know there really is a much simpler way to settle this. Go back to Randi’s site. I think his million-dollar challenge would include the claims made for Feng Shui. Of course, you don’t have to. Just like Karl doesn’t want to spend time reading about it, you may not think there’s enough in it to go through all the protocols and tests that could net you a million dollars. But you’d certainly end up, one way or another, with a much more definite result than asking OB what she thinks of it.
BTW, have you have seen the episode of Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” series where they give the same premises over to different Feng Shui experts and get completely different results with different justifications?